this post was submitted on 05 May 2024
604 points (100.0% liked)
196
16484 readers
2179 users here now
Be sure to follow the rule before you head out.
Rule: You must post before you leave.
founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
Sorry if this question seems stupid, but you seem to really know what you're talking about.
My understanding is that the main issues TERFs have is protecting women's spaces, and that by having a vague or arbitrary definition of womanhood it erodes those spaces.
I personally would like to see a society that's far less focused on gender and minimises that kind of segregation outside of medical necessity. But I know that's quite extreme and I don't have a "perfect" solution, assuming we're going to keep things like women's only gyms, domestic violence shelters, and professional sports.
Judging based on "passing" is clearly transphobic and ignores any kind of intersex/non-binary presentation. As well as some masculine featured afab women somehow failing. And basing on biology is clearly flawed. So if it's not too much trouble what would your suggestion be?
The person you asked your question of claims to be a biologist, but you dismiss the relevance of biology.
It sounds like you might be more interested in an answer from a sociologist. Or are you asking the biologist to argue that basing it on biology is not flawed?
The biologist is arguing that segregating based on biology is flawed. I think I was agreeing with them.
Sorry if that wasn't clear. And you are right my question doesn't make sense, they're just saying you can't segregate on biology